Spirituality
12 May 12
15 May 12
3 edits
Originally posted by finneganDidn't Darwin refer to adaptation by natural selection as a "goal" driven process that selected the best gene transfers for the "purpose" of survival or something to that effect? Did he ever say it was entirely by accident or random chance? This is what jaywill is getting at. If there is no "goal" or "purpose" in these changes, then it is entirely done by random chance. Otherwise everything should remain as they are as you pointed out.
Humy has done a really good job of responding to this stuff from Jaywill. Jaywill would not even consider making these arguments if he had ever read and understood a decent book on the subject of evolution. Do you mind if I join in all the same?
[quote] If it is an error to conceive of the process of having a "goal" then it is hard to model it. If we spe ully and in tedious detail in The Ancestors Tale with supporting references. Go read it.
Another problem has arisen for evolutionists in that the cells are much more complex than orignally thought by Darwin. Minature factories, machines, program information and such have been found in the cellular level by the scientist, who are now raising the question of "How did they get there?" since they look like they are intelligently designed and information only comes from an intelligent source as far as anyone knows. The big question now is "Who or what is this intelligent source?" Could it be the God of the Holy Bible or is there some other yet to be explained explanation?
Originally posted by RJHinds
Didn't Darwin refer to adaptation by natural selection as a "goal" driven process that selected the best gene transfers for the "purpose" of survival or something to that effect? Did he ever say it was entirely by accident or random chance? This is what jaywill is getting at. If there is no "goal" or "purpose" in these changes, then it is entirely done by e the God of the Holy Bible or is there some other yet to be explained explanation?
This is what jaywill is getting at. If there is no "goal" or "purpose" in these changes, then it is entirely done by random chance. Otherwise everything should remain as they are as you pointed out.
WRONG. Chance does operate in evolution but evolution does not happen by chance. Neither does it require a goal or design. It is a coherent, easily described process.
Chance (transmission errors in genetic reproduction) produces a diverse population within each species. Individuals are slightly different in ways that are at best marginally significant. This diversity is easily demonstrated in countless ways. No part of that is obscure or uncertain. We know in enormous detail exactly how this works.
The environment changes all the time at varying speeds. A bit more humidity, a bit lower water level, a boundary emerges that cuts off two populations of the one species, an area that was forested is cleared or an area becomes covered in forest that was not, a volcano erupts and transforms the area around it, whatever. No part of that is obscure or uncertain.
Some members of a population are better suited to the new environment than others. These are the ones that are more successful in reproducing their version of the gene pool for the species. Hence the distribution of gene types alters in response to changes in the environment.
If change is too radical the species simply dies off leaving a space - an ecological niche that is not in use if you like. There can be many minor events where a species dies off or disappears from an area. There have been enormous events such as the death of the dinosaurs, leaving a huge space which in time was occupied by mammals. Australia was physically isolated from the rest of the land mass, and here it was marsupials, not mammals, that benefitted and filled the various environmental spaces with species often analagous to mammals in similar environments elsewhere on the planet.
The planet is teeming with diverse life forms all anxiously seeking to eat and reproduce, and to avoid being eaten. There is so much diversity out there that almost any environment turns out to be acceptable to some species or another. Penquins like the Antarctic and have few if any rivals for their food supply; they would be happy but for Killer Whales, which are delighted to find such food in so unpromising a location.
Chance is the mechanism that produces diversity. Random diversity is the resource that ensures each environmental niche supports a species that is especially adapted to this niche. Because environmental change is entirely unpredictable, the best way to cope is in fact random diversity, maximising the prospect that something somewhere will be the lucky one to benefit. So even if you do introduce the idea of a designer in charge of all this process, that desigenr would be most successful if it employed random diversity. How else do you design in the ability to recover after a massive comet hits the Earth for example? Or cater for a huge area like Australia to become physically isolated from the rest of the land mass on the planet for millions of years, cutting off all possibility for many types of species of exchanging genetic information and totally altering the competitive pressures at work? There is no coherent reason whatever to object to the operation of random factors in life - quite the oposite.
These are random components but the system of adaptation is not random. If a species is not well adapted to its environment it will not survive. If a niche is not occupied, it will tend to attract in due course some part of the planet's teeming, diverse life to take advantage of it. Any species - and every individual - that is going to receive and transmit genetic information from one generation to the next, must be a viable creature able to live and reproduce within its given environment. That is not random - it is absolutely deterministic.
James Joyce describes the River Liffey as a living personality - Anna Livia - who is young and babbly in the Wicklow Mountains, then developes and matures until she wearily stretches out into Dublin Bay, before being rejuvenated as rain and starting her life cycle all over again. This is art. You could turn it into a religion if you liked (I'd join) but that would not alter its status as an explanation.
It is not by chance that water flows downhill and enters streams, rivers, estuaries and the sea. It is gravity. It looks like design because the water flows in such logical and sensible pathways. You could think of the river attracting water from its tributary streams and the sea attracting or drawing in all the water from the rivers, but that does not demonstrate any form of intention or goal to the process. There is no design and no goal but there is structure and logic all the same.
And by the way can we stop this neat debating device of trying to personalise all evolutionary theory as the personal responsibility of just one man, Darwin, whose every word must be read like scripture. It is tiresome and empty. Wallace came up with the exact same theory for example and was acknowledged by Darwin. The theory has developed and strengthened in the 150 odd years since the Origin was published. Your comment on the cell is twaddle squared.
Originally posted by finneganYou are only assuming. You do not know absolutely and you can not know absolutely without recognizing the source of absolute truth.This is what jaywill is getting at. If there is no "goal" or "purpose" in these changes, then it is entirely done by random chance. Otherwise everything should remain as they are as you pointed out.
WRONG. Chance does operate in evolution but evolution does not happen by chance. Neither does it require a goal or design. It is a cohe 150 odd years since the Origin was published. Your comment on the cell is twaddle squared.
Originally posted by RJHindsA statement is said to be True when it clearly fits all the evidence and is logically coherent and self consistent (ie it has survived all efforts to refute it). A statement is said to be obtuse and utterly stupid when it flies in the face of all reason and evidence, unless it is a religious or ideological statement when we are expected to treat it as beyond question in order to avoid social sanctions. A statement is said to be worthless when it is based on total scepticism, such that there is no useful purpose in having the discussion at all.
You are only assuming. You do not know absolutely and you can not know absolutely without recognizing the source of absolute truth.
A statement is said to have absolute Truth when you decide to go along with Plato's notion of ideal forms or the related religious claim that God is absolute Truth. The latter merely applies to God the value suggested by Plato. It belongs in Hellenistic philosphy as conveniently borrowed by Christians and Muslims and not really in religion at all. In any event it is a human projection onto God of a value that humans wish to associate with God. Sadly, Plato's Ideal Forms are an abstract and unjustified human delusion so I cannot see this being of much value to God.
16 May 12
Originally posted by menace71Your question is as follows:
No argument with God but that doesn't change odds for humans unless there is intervention LOL so the question still stands
Manny
At what number or point is something considered impossible ?
I am not a statistician or an expert on probability theory but it appears to me that your question can not be answered as stated because you give no limits. In the real world, when we exclude the intervention of God, we must know what the limits of the calculation are in order to do the calculation.
We know the world is not infinite so we have to know the limit of the time that is available plus all or at least most of the facts concerning what the something happens to be in order to calculate the probability or approximate probability of that something happening.
If the number becomes too large for the time available then it would be considered for all practical purposes impossible. And of course, in the real world, we must deal with what is practical.
Originally posted by finneganApparently Plato's ideas are important to science since it is stated that Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science.
A statement is said to be True when it clearly fits all the evidence and is logically coherent and self consistent (ie it has survived all efforts to refute it). A statement is said to be obtuse and utterly stupid when it flies in the face of all reason and evidence, unless it is a religious or ideological statement when we are expected to treat it as beyo ...[text shortened]... re an abstract and unjustified human delusion so I cannot see this being of much value to God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato
The statement that physical life came into existence by chance through the unsubstantiated existence of a process called abiogenesis and evolution, which has not even been observed, accounts for all life forms is obtuse and utterly stupid because it flies in the face of all reason and evidence.
It is true that life forms contain information programs and that testify of intelligent design not chance.
16 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by humy
This time, please don't confuse the use of an analogy to make a point about a subject with changing the subject.
Often I can only effectively point out the many errors in your 'logic' by using analogies as below:
If it is an error to conceive of the process of having a "goal" then it is hard to model it.
firstly, how is how “hard” to mo I have answered all your questions. Will you answer at least some of mine?
firstly, how is how “hard” to model a process necessarily relevant to whether the process involves a 'goal'?
Some of us think of Evolution as succeeding or failing. An instance of success has to be pinpointed in order to try to fairly calculate what is the probability of success.
We are not interested in this activity simply meandering around. We are interested in the probabilty of it arriving at the data available to us in the real world. That data must be thought of as a goal to successfully arrive at through the proposed process.
There may be many hypothetical animals or functioning body parts which are purely imaginary. I think the better science would be to examine the process to something we know exists rather than something we only imagine could.
We might, for example, find it hard to model a hurricane. If so, would that mean that a hurricane must involve a 'goal'? Answer; no. -why should this be any different with evolution?
Yes, it is hard to model a hurricane. It may be hard for other reasons. It being hard for other reasons has little bearing on parallel to modeling evolution.
Now I do not like the parallel betweeen a hurricane and evolution. It might be more appropriate if you talked about a hurricane that went over the city dump and left behind it all the junk arranged into, ie. Disney World or the IPCOT Center.
This Evolution process proposed is far far too constructive. The comparison to the hurricane or avalanche, though these are also natural processes, seems unrealistic to me.
I noticed that you included crystal production at the end of the list of hurricane, avalanches, earthquakes. Maybe crystal production would be more agreeable to me. I would have mentioned that FIRST and hurricane, avalanche, and earthquake afterwards. Its curious that the more appropriate example was listed by you last.
In an avalanche I don't think we have to be concerned with sequence things as much as with evolution. For evolution to be successful order of ie. mutations has to be considered. Advantageous mutations should not be erased away. The order and accumulation of advantageous changes has to be registered.
In an avalanche of moving particles around by gravity the order is not that important. You are going essentially from one heap to another heap. Gravity is simply effecting the position, arrangement, speed, movement, and resultant heap. While it would not be a simple model it would be vastly simplier, I think.
In evolution there is a larger proportion of changes that are either destructive or meaningless. But in particles of soil tumbling down a slope we do not have to program so much for particle relationships which are detrimental to the process of the avalanche.
Evolution is viewed by me as a constuctive process encreasing complexity of living entities caught in its cauldron of activity. Maybe I could compare to something like crystal making.
secondly, how would a process not having a goal necessarily make it harder to model? -you haven't explained this although this wouldn't be relevant even if true because of my first point above.
If it is not relevant why waste time asking me to explain it ?
If evolution is true then we have real data in existence as evidence. We cannot know it is true because no one was there to see it.
What we can do is ascertain its probability. We can come up with a fair and reasonable model of parts of the process. To do that we have to define what constitutes success.
Denying that there is such a thing as a successful evolutionary event is too ambiguous. Clearly defining a point at which we may say evolution has successfully arrived helps in the calculating probabilities.
If we just want to model a cauldron of busy activity what is the point? The benefit is in modeling that process's arrival at something we know exists as an instance of success. For lack of any better word, I call that a goal.
I have to go now. But I think recall you saying something like "We know" that something took place simply because we have the fossils. It seems like you were just begging the question. You simply assume as fact the thing some of us are interested to verify.
We don't know the process took place because we have fossils. We didn't observe it. We theorize that evolution happened.
If you want to speak in terms of your faith or religion, you may speak that way. Good science should not speak so dogmatically. It sounds like you are saying the process does not need to be modeled to verify because WE KNOW it to be true.
No, we should model it. And it should be modeled fairly. It cannot be modeled exhaustively. It can only be a rough approximation. But it should be not overly pessimistic and hostile to the theory OR overly optimistic and friendly to the process (like Dawkin's model). It should be in the middle. For the truth, I think, should be somewhere in the middle of two extremes.
I wish I had more time to work on this reply but I cannot now.
16 May 12
5 edits
Originally posted by jaywillfirstly, how is how “hard” to model a process necessarily relevant to whether the process involves a 'goal'?
Some of us think of Evolution as succeeding or failing. An instance of success has to be pinpointed in order to try to fairly calculate what is the probability of success.
We are not interested in this activity simply me two extremes.
I wish I had more time to work on this reply but I cannot now.
Some of us think of Evolution as succeeding or failing.
That's as stupid as saying that a hurricane must be “succeeding or failing” and must involve a goal.
Evolution isn't “succeeding or failing” because the measure of 'success' or 'failure' of something is presumably how close that something comes to a goal but evolution has no goal to 'succeed' or 'fail' to achieve.
An instance of success has to be pinpointed in order to try to fairly calculate what is the probability of success.
-which doesn't apply to evolution because there is no “instance of success” for evolution for achieving a goal because evolution has no goal.
We are not interested in this activity simply meandering around. We are interested in the probabilty of it arriving at the data available to us in the real world.
not in this case. We know that PROCESS of evolution has a probability of occurring of about 100% under the right conduction REGARDLESS of the probability of any particular OUTCOME of evolution, which might be a tiny probability, that has actually occurred which is a DIFFERENT probability.
Because of this, when we try and assess the plausibility of evolution, we would not generally be interested in the probability of a particular OUTCOME of evolution because that tells us nothing about the probability of the PROCESS of evolution occurring because those two probabilities are DIFFERENT and INDEPENDENT probabilities so one can be high and the other low and they are irrelevant to each other in that sense.
That data must be thought of as a goal to successfully arrive at through the proposed process.
the “data” must be “thought of as a goal”? So the “goal” of evolution is to give us that “data”? That makes no sense.
Yes, it is hard to model a hurricane.
so does that mean that a hurricane must involve a 'goal'? Yes or no?
It may be hard for other reasons.
which is irrelevant -Why should the reason WHY we find it hard to model a natural process necessarily have anything to do with whether it involves a goal?
Your next few lines of post are irrelevant because they don't explain this. Just pointing out the differences between the different natural processes doesn't explain why we should think one involves a goal and not the others.
If it is not relevant why waste time asking me to explain it ?
to point out yet another logical error you have made so that you can see that you are not generally thinking logically.
If evolution is true then we have real data in existence as evidence. We cannot know it is true because no one was there to see it.
not usually directly. So what? Scientific detective work using logic and evidence allows us to observe it indirectly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
“...Observed instances
Island genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances,...
….
….
Observed instances
Ring species
The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.
The Ensatina salamanders, which form a ring round the Central Valley in California.
The Greenish Warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas.
the grass Anthoxanthum has been known to undergo parapatric speciation in such cases as mine contamination of an area.
…..”
there are also some much more DIRECTLY observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
“...Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
….
…
...Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
….”
-and more from that link.
Nobody has ever seen an atom directly, only indirectly. So atoms probably don't exist?
-using your logic here that you are using for evolution, the answer would have to be “yes, they probably don't exist”!
WHY reject indirect evidence/observations?
We have the evidence and the evidence is not JUST the fossils as you appear to imply in your next few lines and that evidence proves without reasonable doubt that evolution happens and has happened. The fact that most of that evidence is indirect is totally irrelevant.
16 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillGood luck answering this Humy. I can't resist joining in though.firstly, how is how “hard” to model a process necessarily relevant to whether the process involves a 'goal'?
Some of us think of Evolution as succeeding or failing. An instance of success has to be pinpointed in order to try to fairly calculate what is the probability of success.
We are not interested in this activity simply me ...[text shortened]... two extremes.
I wish I had more time to work on this reply but I cannot now.
Some of us think of Evolution as succeeding or failing. An instance of success has to be pinpointed in order to try to fairly calculate what is the probability of success.
The criterion of success in Evolution is a viable living creature that can reproduce successfully. It is not that hard to pinpoint examples. You are probably sitting on one now or maybe it is sitting on you.
We are interested in the probability of it arriving at the data available to us in the real world.
Darwin did experimental work on as well as observational studies of actually existing natural species. He set out to understand why there is the variety of species we actually observe. Modern biologists have done vastly more work with actual living things. This real world is the data on which biology has feasted for 150 years in order to bring to you the delight that is evolutionary biology.
This Evolution process proposed is far far too constructive. The comparison to the hurricane or avalanche, though these are also natural processes, seems unrealistic to me.
I wonder what that statement actually says? Anyone who watches, for example, the nature programmes of David Attenborough will be stunned by the sheer amazing diversity of existing species in this actual material world we actually occupy now. It is a little weird to say this actual material world could not exist because it is too improbable. It clearly does exist in all its stunning complexity. When we are told that this evolution process is far too constructive, the trouble is that it is no more or less than what we actually do observe out there in front of our very eyes. Yes it is a fairly simple theory in the face of such a wealth of complexity but it happens to work very well. The contrary argument which I know you propose is that the Bible tells us everything we need to know and I fail to see on what criteria you think that is a less surprising assertion (even if it were true it is a surprising assertion). So you are entitled to be surprised but then, people were surprised by Newton , Copernicus, Einstein, heavier than air flying machines, atom bombs, iPods. So what?
For evolution to be successful order of ie. mutations has to be considered.... The order and accumulation of advantageous changes has to be registered.
See Dawkins The Ancestor's Tale for a detailed account of the order of evolution through time. The detail is there. Why just ignore it for the sake of a futile argument?
Evolution is viewed by me as a constuctive process encreasing complexity of living entities caught in its cauldron of activity.
Yes that is how Herbert Spencer saw it as well. For him, the pinnacle of evolution was apparently a Victorian gentleman in a liberal state with a laissez faire economy and by amazing chance, he was himself a perfect sample of the type. Darwin did not and neither do modern biologists. For example, grass only arrived on the planet about 50 million years ago (this from memory but I think it's right) and, for all its many fascinating qualities, it is not more complex than, say, a dinosaur or a shark, which were present vastly longer and earlier. Grass is very successful in evolutionary terms, both in propogating itself and in adapting to diverse environments. No less interesting are the countless bacteria and viruses which continue to adapt and change, evolving very rapidly in the face of environmental and competitive pressures. They are not more complicated than, say, an insect.
If evolution is true then we have real data in existence as evidence. We cannot know it is true because no one was there to see it.
Now if you want a model for evolution that can be observed in a human timescale (which would not be possible for species like say dinosaurs or humans) consider the evolution of viruses and bacteria, which we observe as it happens and in real time. Natural selection accounts elegantly for their transformations in the face of environmental pressures. Just consider the arms race between infection and anti-biotics as a working case study. What more could you ask for? Of necessity, (otherwise it would not be a useful model) a model is simpler than that which it models so please do not suggest the only model you will consider is one that is impossibly complex and over impossible timescales for the purpose. You want a model - that is the model.
The benefit is in modeling that process's arrival at something we know exists as an instance of success. For lack of any better word, I call that a goal.
For lack of a better word, I imagine that modern drug resistent bacteria will constitute an evolutionary success story in your language and the goal of antibiotics must be to produce drug resistent, untreatable infections to kill us all. Or maybe you know a better word after all? Seems to me you confuse the word "outcome" with the word "goal."
We don't know the process took place because we have fossils. We didn't observe it. We theorize that evolution happened.We do know that evolution happens and I have given examples and a good source. As regards fossils, since we know the process does happen, and since it elegantly allows for the evolution of dinosaurs, then it is surely fair to ask why you imagine that something we can observe happening today did not also happen in the same way in the past. Similarly, we can observe sedimentation today, we can observe volcanic activity today, we can observe earthquakes today, we cn observe the behaviour of rivers today, we can observe the behaviour of glaciers today. Why would we not reasonably infer that these processes happened in the past much as they do today? Why would they behave differenly and in what way might they do that? Seems to me bloody amazing to think otherwise.
For the truth, I think, should be somewhere in the middle of two extremes.
This is a novel type of argument. When testing a theory, surely it can be falsified and it is then wrong, or it can be verified over and over again and then it is as close to truth as we are going to get. What is the justification for extreme scepticism which cannot bear to tolerate the way evidence has stacked up in this case?
(like Dawkin's model)
Tiresome I know, but Dawkins does not have a personal model. He sets out to describe mainstream thinking in modern biology and does so very clearly and well. He also considers seriously the arguments of creationists and supplies such detailed responses that it would seem at least informative if you were to read some of them. He (and I do) takes the time to read Creationist and ID arguments in order to debate with them. You might return the same consideration in the interests of actually clarifying what it is that you are debating. I know you will find that nauseating but hang on, we find ID arguments nauseating - seems only fair.
16 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humyThis is nothing but hogwash. Your just as indoctrinated to believe in evolution as the JWs are by the Watchtower to belief their cult religion. There is no reasoning with you on evolution just the same as you can not reason with JWs on their cult religion. You use speculation and assumptions as proof instead of facts. You are blinded by the deception of Satan in the same way.Some of us think of Evolution as succeeding or failing.
That's as stupid as saying that a hurricane must be “succeeding or failing” and must involve a goal.
Evolution isn't “succeeding or failing” because the measure of 'success' or 'failure' of something is presumably how close that something comes to a goal but evolution has no goal to appened. The fact that most of that evidence is indirect is totally irrelevant.
17 May 12
Originally posted by finneganMore hogwash.
Good luck answering this Humy. I can't resist joining in though.
Some of us think of Evolution as succeeding or failing. An instance of success has to be pinpointed in order to try to fairly calculate what is the probability of success.
The criterion of success in Evolution is a viable living creature that can reproduce successfully. I ...[text shortened]... find that nauseating but hang on, we find ID arguments nauseating - seems only fair.